Vinatieri needs a long term deal, but what about the cap implications? Dwight has been great at PR and good at WR-- I'd love to see him back in 2006. Bethel hasn't turned the corner as a WR, and IMO that puts him at risk for a roster spot in 2006.

Offensive depth: Flutie should reture. Evans would be a good minimum $ veteran re-signing. Troy, Bam, Davis and Dwight dont have contracts. I expect to see at least three of them back next year. Ashworth should be back. Will Fauria retire? Early draft picks at WR a possibility

Defensive depth: Depth and age at LB and SS are a concern. I expect BB/SP to draft elite long-term solutions, particularly at LB. In the secondary, my priority would be to re-sign Gay, Scott, Scott, Hawkins and add a 3rd round rookie.

Very good in-depth analysis. I think what it all means is that we have a lot of flexibility with our high draft picks, which I will post in another thread. I really hope Vinatieri, Koppen, Gay (who I didn't know was a FA), and Neal are kept. I would really like to keep Givens, but I am not so sure if he returns, Ashworth would be solid depth if he comes at a right price. Depth at NT would also be a need that you didn't add, because I am not sure how good Mike Wright, Klecko, or Santonio Thomas can be. Wilfork can't play every play. Great post I was hoping someone would do an offseason analysis like that so I wouldn't have to.

1) Koppen is signed through 2006.
2) Miguel and I usually assume that ERFA's are signed. After all they have nowhere else to go. Surely Gay and Guss Scott are easy signings at the minimum, which is what ERFA's get. This immediiately solves the depth issue at defensive back. I think Childress is now an ERFA also and the DL we just brought up from the practice squad and also Alexander.
3) Hawkins is my first choice for free agent safety (same as you)
4) Chad Scott is my first choice for free agent corner (well except for Law)
5) The WR situation is extremely serious as can be seen from the four open positions. Also, Branch will be on his contract year, perhaps expecting an extension.
6) I will have Harrison on PUP until he practices.
7) Any Vinatieri contract would be at a lower cap hit than we have now.
8) Signing Ashworth to an incentive contract similar to Gorin's seems right.

Very good post I like the information you provided and this gets me excited about the draft I'm sure our people in charge will have a few surprises for us again this year and I have learned to take a wait and see about our draft picks. They may not be glamour names but majority of the time they certainly fit into the team concept and thats what its all about.

There will be literally hundreds of roster discussions on this board over the next few months.

nickw308810 said:

Very good in-depth analysis. I think what it all means is that we have a lot of flexibility with our high draft picks, which I will post in another thread. I really hope Vinatieri, Koppen, Gay (who I didn't know was a FA), and Neal are kept. I would really like to keep Givens, but I am not so sure if he returns, Ashworth would be solid depth if he comes at a right price. Depth at NT would also be a need that you didn't add, because I am not sure how good Mike Wright, Klecko, or Santonio Thomas can be. Wilfork can't play every play. Great post I was hoping someone would do an offseason analysis like that so I wouldn't have to.

Believe Klecko (what has this guy done-big disappointment), Brown and Poole will be gone (self explanatory) but don't think Beisel is at any risk. Looking forward to another interesting draft for us and wouldn't be surprised to see a similar move to last season (went OL with our #1-which was against the grain), where we go for a LB or DB with our first choice.

I think those re-signings are veritable certainties, with the possible exception of Givens, if he wants too much money. If they're resigned, the starting offense is completely set. Fauria will likely be back as well. Then the only potential "needs" on offense are bringing in a young RB if a steal is available, and possibly bringing in a WR if a nice one is there. Neither is a "need", but on the list of "would be nice to have if there's good value". It's a bad year for WRs though, so that could be unlikely. Several good RBs available though, so that could be an option. A great year for TEs, but we're all set there - unless Watson gets moved to WR (which I doubt - he's great at TE, and getting better every game). Can probably expect an OG or OT pick later in the draft if there's nice value. No "needs" on offense, but if there's a good value pick, RB, WR, and OL seem like the main possibilities. RB because of age, WR and OL for depth.

The entire starting unit is under contract. Only question is Harrison's injury.

Click to expand...

Yup. Should probably have three starting CBs listed, since nickel packages are needed so often. Gay will be resigned, and he and HObbs will compete for #2 corner. I don't see Duane Starks here anywhere....?

Vinatieri needs a long term deal, but what about the cap implications? Dwight has been great at PR and good at WR-- I'd love to see him back in 2006.

Click to expand...

Dwight should definitely be back, as well as Andre Davis IMO, as depth at WR and on returns.

I agree. Bam seems to be a good "young Troy", based on his body size and abilities, and willingness to play CB as needed. Maybe Troy would like to come back as a WR coach....

Defensive depth: Depth and age at LB and SS are a concern.

Click to expand...

LB yes, SS no. After Harrison, there's Gus Scott (who will be re-signed) and James Sanders at SS - good youth. Only reason to pick a SS is if there's an absolute steal IMO.

LB though could be a big focus in the draft, to bring in youth. Bruschi, McGinest, and Vrabel are all getting up there in years. With them still here, the front seven is great. But, it would be nice to have some youth for them to groom. Fortunately, this year is a stellar one for LBs, so that will likely be a big focus on day 1 IMO.

Potential Draft Needs
WR, LB, OG, DB, KR, TE, HB, QB

Click to expand...

I agree, with LB being the top need. OG and QB seem like likely day 2 picks (especially OG - since Cassel is young, a veteran backup QB might be nice). Fauria will likely return, but because of the depth in the draft at TE, it's a possibility. But unlikely IMO. No real need at DB if everyone returns, but that's not a certainty. A young HB would be nice, and seems a likely pick somewhere, although LB is definitely tops. ILB and OLB.

A potential "tweener" (DE converted to OLB) that could be picked up in the third round potentially:http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/de/mannylawson.html
Someone like him who has all the physical skills could be a good option, as it's pretty unlikely that ANYONE drafted by the Pats will be a starter in year 1, especially at LB (short of injuries). So, someone with loads of talent who just needs to learn the position is a good option.

Believe Klecko (what has this guy done-big disappointment), Brown and Poole will be gone (self explanatory) but don't think Beisel is at any risk. Looking forward to another interesting draft for us and wouldn't be surprised to see a similar move to last season (went OL with our #1-which was against the grain), where we go for a LB or DB with our first choice.

Click to expand...

How can a 5th round pick who has done EVERYTHING that the coaching staff has thrown at him in terms of losing and gaining weight be considered a disappointment? If there is anything that is disappointing, its how the team handled him. They were the ones who couldn't make up their minds. His rookie year, they told him to stay at 285. After his rookie year, they told him he needed to lose 20 lbs so they could use him at ILB. Then, instead of using him there, they used him at FB, where he proceeded to tear his knee up on a low hit. Now, he is coming back from a knee injury and asked to get back up to 280 so he can be used on the D-line, and still used as a blocking FB.

Give the guy a break. This was basically his 2nd full year because of an injury the Pats caused by using him as a FB.

How can a 5th round pick who has done EVERYTHING that the coaching staff has thrown at him in terms of losing and gaining weight be considered a disappointment? If there is anything that is disappointing, its how the team handled him. They were the ones who couldn't make up their minds. His rookie year, they told him to stay at 285. After his rookie year, they told him he needed to lose 20 lbs so they could use him at ILB. Then, instead of using him there, they used him at FB, where he proceeded to tear his knee up on a low hit. Now, he is coming back from a knee injury and asked to get back up to 280 so he can be used on the D-line, and still used as a blocking FB.

Give the guy a break. This was basically his 2nd full year because of an injury the Pats caused by using him as a FB.

Click to expand...

I was rooting for the guy from day one, but don't think we can afford to keep trying to find something he can do. He will get his shot in the next camp, but if he can't find his niche - we have to move on.

Yup. Should probably have three starting CBs listed, since nickel packages are needed so often. Gay will be resigned, and he and HObbs will compete for #2 corner.

Click to expand...

It was my impression that Hobbs finished the season as NE's purported No. 1 CB. If he continues to improve through the off-season and TC, Samuel is going to be the one fighting to start - I still wonder if Samuel had any kind of injury that slowed him through the middle of the season.....

The nice thing is that we have names we could pencil in for most of the TBD slots. That gives BB/SP a free hand on draft day to be truly opportunistic.

For example, TE might not make sense in the short term, but if that's the value at #21 it's not totally inconceivable-- it just solidifies our plan for Fauria as a free agent and suggests something for Graham next year.

In fact, there is a legitimate chance that we could draft at any position in the first round, with the sole exception of QB. Other than that, I could see us draft OT, OG, DE, NT, LB, DB, WR, RB, TE... really any position is possible.

The hitch is that we have specific criteria for any position
NT - 330# run stopper
DE - 310# with long arms, can shed blocks
OLB - 250# pass rusher, can shed blocks
ILB - 250# run stopper who can shed blocks and turn his hips to play in pass coverage
CB - 185# sure tackler in the open field with a reputation for physical play
S - 210# hard hitter with a great mind for the game, demonstrated leadership
TE - 250# must be able to block and receive
OL - 305#, agile and smart
WR - any size, but must run great routes, great hands, lots of heart and proven productivity... no Matt Jones prospects
RB - 225# bruiser between the tackles
FB - wha? why draft FB when you have OLs, DLs and TEs more than happy to take the snap
QB - 6'4 225 pocket passer with focus on great accuracy

... and they all have to be smart, students of the game, dedicated to football.

So, even tho we could draft almost any position, there actually wont be many players that fit our profile in the draft overall-- maybe a few dozen, tops.